What must Chicken Guy and the developer agree to be bound by regarding claims?
Chicken_Guy Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- (2) Chicken Guy and Developer agree to be bound by the provisions of any limitation on the period of time in which claims must be brought under applicable law.
Chicken Guy and Developer further agree that, in connection with any such arbitration proceeding, each must submit or file any claim which would constitute a compulsory counterclaim (as defined by Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) within the same proceeding as the claim to which it relates.
Any such claim which is not submitted or filed as described above will be forever barred.
The arbitrator may not consider any settlement discussions or offers that might have been made by either party.
- (3) Chicken Guy and Developer agree that arbitration will be conducted on an individual, not a class-wide, basis, and that an arbitration proceeding between Chicken Guy and Developer and their respective affiliates, owners, shareholders, officers, directors, agents, and/or employees may not be consolidated with any other arbitration proceeding involving Chicken Guy and Developer and another party.
Source: Item 23 — RECEIPTS (FDD pages 50–286)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Chicken Guy's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, both Chicken Guy and the developer must adhere to any legal limitations regarding the time frame within which claims can be filed. This means that if there is a statute of limitations or other legal restriction on how long a party has to bring a claim, both Chicken Guy and the developer are bound by that time limit.
Furthermore, in any arbitration proceeding, both Chicken Guy and the developer are required to submit any claim that would be considered a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within the same proceeding as the original claim. Failure to do so will result in the claim being permanently barred. This encourages efficiency in dispute resolution by requiring all related claims to be addressed in a single proceeding.
Finally, Chicken Guy and the developer agree that any arbitration will be conducted on an individual basis, not as a class-wide action. This means that neither party can consolidate an arbitration proceeding with any other involving Chicken Guy and another party. This provision prevents franchisees from joining together to bring a single arbitration case against Chicken Guy, limiting the company's exposure in dispute resolution.